Legal Opinion
Kleinsorge & Heilbron v. Liness
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 23, 1911No. Civ. No. 853PublishedCited by 21 opinions
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County, and from an order denying a new trial. C. N. Post, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.
The plaintiffs, constituting a copartnership, are engaged in the business of buying and selling real estate in the city of Sacramento.
One Q. H. Cope was, in the year 1909, in the employment of plaintiffs, his duties being to negotiate the purchase and sale of real estate for said copartnership.
In the month of July, 1909, the defendant delivered to Cope, acting for plaintiffs, the following writing:
“I hereby agree to sell my property described as follows, to-wit: The east 20 feet of Lot 1, in the block or square bounded by L and M, 8th and 9th streets, City of Sacramento, County of Sacramento,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Zeimer v. AntisellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Toomy v. DunphyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- McCarthy v. LoupeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
- Myres v. SurryhneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- Sanchez v. YorbaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1908
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Estate of RuleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
- Moore v. BorgfeldtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
- Franklin v. HansenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
- Rader Co. v. StoneCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
- Herzog v. BlattCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.